https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333896 Refund claims under Notification No. 52/2011-ST were held inadmissible where the application was filed beyond the one-year period counted from the relevant let-export order, because the limitation requirement was part of the notification and not a mere procedural formality. The claimant was also disentitled because paragraph 3(j) treated registration with the specified Export Promotion Council as a mandatory substantive condition for refund. The Tribunal applied the principle that exemption and refund notifications must be strictly complied with, and failure to satisfy either the prescribed time limit or the registration condition rendered the refund claim unsustainable. en-us Mon, 24 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 25 Feb 2017 11:19:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333896 Refund claims under Notification No. 52/2011-ST were held inadmissible where the application was filed beyond the one-year period counted from the relevant let-export order, because the limitation requirement was part of the notification and not a mere procedural formality. The claimant was also disentitled because paragraph 3(j) treated registration with the specified Export Promotion Council as a mandatory substantive condition for refund. The Tribunal applied the principle that exemption and refund notifications must be strictly complied with, and failure to satisfy either the prescribed time limit or the registration condition rendered the refund claim unsustainable. Case-Laws Service Tax Mon, 24 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333896